Grant v. Day

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 10, 2023
• Docket: 447, 2022
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

REGINA GRANT,1 § § No. 447, 2022 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CK21-02380 SKLAR DAY, KENNEDY TUCKER, § Petition Nos. 22-19499 and RAYMOND GRANT, § 22-16235 § Respondents Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: May 12, 2023 Decided: July 10, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the opening brief and the record below, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) The petitioner below-appellant, Regina Grant (“the Paternal

Grandmother”), filed this appeal from the Family Court’s November 10, 2022 order

dismissing her petition for guardianship of her granddaughter (“the Child”). We find

no error or abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s decision. Accordingly, we

affirm the Family Court’s judgment.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). (2) The Child was born in 2017 and lived with the Paternal Grandmother

until April 2021 when the Child suffered burns on a treadmill. The Child began

living with the respondent below-appellee Skylar Day. On August 3, 2021, Day

filed a petition for guardianship of the Child. With the support of the Division of

Family Services (“DFS”), Day obtained interim guardianship of the Child in

November 2021.

(3) On December 2, 2021, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for

guardianship of the Child. After a hearing on July 14, 2022, the Family Court held

that it was in the best interests of the Child for Day to have guardianship. The Family

Court denied the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.

(4) On July 14, 2022, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for third-

party visitation with the Child. She filed amended petitions for visitation on July 19,

2022 and August 22, 2022.

(5) On September 14, 2022, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for

guardianship of the Child and one of the Child’s older half-brothers. She also filed

a motion and affidavit for an emergency ex parte order, alleging that Day’s sons

were sexually molesting the Child. The Family Court referred the case to DFS for

investigation and scheduled an emergency hearing for October 6, 2022. After the

October 6, 2022 hearing, the Family Court removed the Child’s older brother from

2 the petition because he had a separate file and stated that the Paternal Grandmother

could file a separate petition for guardianship of the Child’s older brother.

(6) As to the Child, DFS had been unable to investigate the Paternal

Grandmother’s petition. The Child was scheduled for an interview at the Child

Advocacy Center on October 18, 2022. The Family Court scheduled another hearing

for October 27, 2022, and then rescheduled the hearing for November 10, 2022.

(7) At the November 10, 2022 hearing, the Family Court heard testimony

from the Paternal Grandmother, Day, a DFS employee, and a police officer.

According to the DFS employee, the Child did not disclose any abuse during her

interview at the Child Advocacy Center. Day’s sons denied molesting the Child.

The police officer testified that the investigation had been closed. DFS had no

concerns about the Child being in Day’s care.

(8) On November 22, 2022, the Family Court dismissed the Paternal

Grandmother’s petition for guardianship. Based upon a review of the files (which

reflected that this was the second time the Paternal Grandmother had accused one of

Day’s children of molesting the Child), the history of the case, and the hearing

testimony, the Family Court expressed concern for the Paternal Grandmother’s

mental health and that the Paternal Grandmother was fabricating the allegations of

abuse. The Family Court emphasized that it had held a full guardianship hearing on

July 14, 2022 and that guardianship was decided then. The Family Court ordered

3 that all contact between the Paternal Grandmother and the Child be supervised and

referred the matter to a visitation center for biweekly visitation. This appeal

followed.

(9) This Court’s review of a Family Court order extends to a review of the

facts and the law.2 We review issues of law de novo.3 If the Family Court has

correctly applied the law, our review is limited to abuse of discretion.4

(10) On appeal, the Paternal Grandmother primarily challenges the removal

of the Child from her care in April 2021 and the Family Court’s July 14, 2022

decision denying her petition for guardianship. She also contends that Day has failed

to bring the Child to the visitation center in April and May for visitation. That claim

is outside the scope of this appeal.5

(11) Having reviewed the Family Court’s November 10, 2022 order, the

record on appeal, and Day’s papers, we conclude that the Family Court did not err

in dismissing the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship. The Family

Court held on July 14, 2022 that it was in the best interests of the Child for Day to

have guardianship. The Paternal Grandmother did not appeal the Family Court’s

July 14, 2022 decision and cannot relitigate that decision in this appeal. She alleged

2 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 3 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 187 (Del. 1991). 5 See, e.g., Naccari v. Quails, 2019 WL 5485933, at *1 (Del. Oct. 24, 2019) (describing claims based on events occurring after issuance of the order on appeal as outside the scope of the appeal).

4 sexual abuse of the Child in her second petition for guardianship, but the Family

Court found no basis for those allegations after the November 10, 2022 hearing. The

Paternal Grandmother failed to show that granting her petition for guardianship

would be in the best interests of these Child. Under these circumstances, the Family

Court did not err in dismissing the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice